It was very interesting to evaluate the comments made in the review
of the subject scheme material. Several points became very clear:
- It was the first time that most people had read this
content, and probably the first time that it has been
reviewed.
- The draft 1.3 topics contained some examples that illustrate
processor behavior that is either not described normatively or
described in inadequate detail. I'm working on this, but will
definitely need help. There also are limits to what we can do
and get DITA 1.3 out this year.
- The draft 1.3 topics focus primarily on controlled values
and do not discuss (much) what can be done with taxonomic
subjects, especially in conjunction with the classification
domain. I think we'll just need to accept this as a
shortcoming for 1.3.
- Keys and key references function differently in the context
of subjectScheme maps. This is especially evident in the
following situations, and I think we must clarify our
collective, TC stance about the expected processing of @keyref
in the context of a subject scheme:
- Using <schemeref> to extend an enumeration of
controlled values or to broaden subject categories
- Using an addressing attribute to link to a detailed
explanation of a subject from a <subjectdef> element.
Here I think one must use @href; using @keyref would open up
the possibility of lots of circular processing.
- If subject scheme maps have special rules for processing
@keyref, do they also have special rules for key scopes? Are
key scopes even valid for subject scheme maps?
Back story:
- There was one subjectScheme topic in the 1.2 Architectural
Spec, and then lots of material in the Language
Reference examples. For 1.3, I broke the content into
multiple topics, and moved material out of the (non-normative)
examples in the Language Reference.
- The original spec material had been taken from proposals
drafted by Erik Hennum (IBM), who left IBM before 1.2 was
released. Erik's tendency was to define through example,
which is how so many of the rules and processor expectations
ended up in the Language Reference examples.
--
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
|